|
More
Controversy Over Female-Male Pay Gap
DIGG THIS
Here are several
more correspondences that have emerged from my very interesting
lecture at Loyola College in Maryland (I have lightly edited all
contributions, mainly correcting spelling errors.) For previous
entries in this series, see here,
here,
here
and here.
I. The first
correspondence starts with a letter from Keith Vetter, Professor
in the Law School of Loyola University New Orleans; it is addressed
to Isabel Medina, fellow law school professor, of whom we have heard
before. It is copied to the usual suspects.
Ia. Vetter:
From: Keith
Vetter [mailto:bkvetter@loyno.edu]
Sent: Mon 12/1/2008 2:29 PM
To: medina@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu; lawfac@loyno.edu; decuir@loyno.edu; voigt@loyno.edu;
locander@loyno.edu; drdave@loyno.edu
Subject: Re: statements about wage disparities and sex and race
Isabel,
If Professor
Block's views on blacks and women – I'm not familiar with them –
are as irrelevant and fantastical as his views on macroeconomics,
his putative area of expertise, I really wouldn't be concerned about
them being taken seriously in many quarters of any importance. In
the macroeconomics area, he seems to me like a medieval advocate
of the world is flat theory trying to explain why Magellan's circumnavigation
of the globe is consistent with his views. I suspect that he exhibits
an equal perspicacity in related – or unrelated – areas. "There
are none so blind, as those who WILL not see."
Ib. Here is
my reply to Vetter:
From: Walter
Block
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 6:42 PM
To: Keith Vetter; medina@loyno.edu; wbarnett@loyno.edu
Cc: lawfac@loyno.edu; decuir@loyno.edu; voigt@loyno.edu; locander@loyno.edu;
drdave@loyno.edu
Subject: RE: statements about wage disparities and sex and race
Dear Prof.
Vetter:
I am very curious
as to which of my publications in macroeconomics you take such exception.
Please do tell me. Most of my articles in macro I have co authored
with Bill Barnett. I assure you that he, a medievalist, and a flat
earther, is responsible for all the errors therein; whereas I, in
contrast, have contributed only non-medieval material. I, in contrast
to him, believe that the world is round. Could you be confusing
the two of us with each other?
Yours truly,
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics
College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Ave., Box 15
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fax: (504) 864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
Ic. And here
is Vetter’s response to me
Dear Walter,
Thanks for
the personal letter. Apparently, unlike some of your colleagues,
you and I are alike in not taking banter or ourselves excessively
seriously. It ain't a life or death matter. As for your publications,
I have kept up with your numerous articles etc. in the Loyola and
local media. I have not read any of your scholarly publications
– on the other hand, I do not read many legal "scholarly" publications
either. Most of them are bloated and marginally relevant to the
actual practice and making of law. I assume that you are roughly
of the Austrian/Chicago/Ayn Rand school of macroeconomics, based
on those sources. If I am wrong, please correct me. However, note
that I use the word "roughly." I am neither interested in nuances
or angels on the head of a pin, as a medievalist would be. In short,
I am either a dilettante or a renaissance man, depending on your
perspective. Please read my reply to your colleague Pat for further
exposition.
As for my former
student – and a very good one – Bill Barnett, I can assure you that
when he left my tutelage, he most definitely believed that the earth
was round. If he has changed his opinion, I have no doubt that it
is due to the pernicious influence that you have had on him.
Best Regards,
Keith (not a Ph.D.)
About which,
a few comments. Perhaps I should not have been so jocular; an economics
colleague of mine warned me about this, but only after I wrote this
letter. Never again. Evidently, Prof. Vetter feels friendly enough
with me, on the basis of my somewhat humorous response to him, to
address me by my first name. My own "philosophy" on this
nomenclature business is as follows: first names are only for friends.
I start off with everyone on this basis (except undergraduates,
of course; we’ve got to draw the line somewhere, no?); everyone,
that is, who either I know nothing about, or has acted in a friendly
way toward me. But, I do not at all regard Prof. Vetter’s letter
to Prof. Medina, of 12/1/08, which he was kind enough to copy me
on, as friendly at all.
I find it shocking,
yes, shocking, that Prof. Vetter would regard my publications in
macroeconomics as "irrelevant and fantastical" when he
admits he has not read any of them ("I have not read any of
your scholarly publications.") It is certainly incompatible
with being a member of a community of scholars, such as a university
purports to be, to criticize a colleague’s publications in so hysterical
a manner while being totally ignorant of them. How would Prof. Vetter
feel if I dismissed his scholarly output in such an exorbitant manner,
not having read a word of them?
I can excuse
Prof. Vetter for conflating Austrian and Chicago views on macroeconomics,
which are almost as far apart as it is possible for them to be.
It is a perfectly reasonable error for a non-economist to make.
Heck, this mistake is made, even, by many economists (Rand, to the
extent she had any discernable macroeconomic views, would certainly
veer in the Austrian direction; e.g., her views on gold in Atlas
Shrugged). But this error certainly reveals he is in no
position to assess my contributions, such as they are, to macroeconomics.
Id. Here is
a letter from my business school colleague, Prof. Pat Lynch, in
support of my position vis-à-vis Prof. Vetter:
From: Patrick
Lynch
Sent: Tue 12/2/2008 8:08 AM
To: Keith Vetter; Faculty
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: statements about wage disparities and sex
and race]
Keith, you
and Professor Medina are entitled to your opinions. However, Walter
did offer to debate Isabel in a public forum. Nevertheless, she
declined, and you and she continue to use the email to criticize
Walter. If you and Isabel are so secure in your position, why don't
both of you accept Walter's offer to debate him? I certainly would
welcome the opportunity to witness an intelligent debate, and based
on my experiences working with Walter the past three years, I can
assure you he will provide much food for thought. If you and Isabel
aren't willing to debate Walter, I would suggest that all cease
these emails.
As an aside,
I find the tone of your email offensive and your criticism of his
position on macroeconomics unsubstantiated. The question begs asking,
What are your qualifications to question his economics expertise?
If he were to ridicule your posture on a given legal issue, I would
have to pose a similar question to him.
Best regards,
Pat
Patrick M.
Lynch, CPA, CFE, CFF, DABFA, CrFA, CPCU, CLU, ChFC, MS Taxation
Assistant Professor of Accounting
Office MI 310
College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Ave., Box 15
New Orleans, LA 70118
504-864-7974
pmlynch@loyno.edu
Ie. Here is
Prof Vetter’s response to my friend and colleague Pat Lynch’s defense
of me (I want to acknowledge that two other friends and business
college friends of mine, Lee Mundell and Ron Christner, supported
Pat’s response to Vetter):
From: Keith
Vetter [mailto:bkvetter@loyno.edu]
Sent: Tue 12/2/2008 6:06 PM
To: Ron Christner
Cc: Lee Mundell; Patrick Lynch; Faculty
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: statements about wage disparities and sex
and race]
Dear Pat,
First of all,
let me assure you that I agree wholeheartedly with Walter Block's
position on academic freedom. I will vigorously defend his right
to express his infantile opinions wherever and whenever he wishes.
On the other hand, that also gives me the right to criticize his
opinions for what they are: irrelevant and fantastical. I have the
right to do this by e-mail or any other forum, just as he does.
I'm sorry you find my remarks offensive, but freedom of speech allows
one to take positions that others may find offensive – of course
their remedy is to label them offensive, as you have done.
As for the
"question that begs asking," let me know the next time you see one.
It would be quite a sight. In the interest of eliminating mendicancy
– a position that I am sure you and Walter would agree with –
I will try to silence the begging question. I have no expertise
in macroeconomics. And by the way, if Walter were to question my
opinion on a legal issue, I would not question his expertise – I
would attempt to answer the criticism. Questioning expertise is
a form of ad hominem argument, avoiding the issue.
If you wish
to know my opinion on the Austrian/Chicago/Ayn Rand school of economics,
I agree with the testimony of Alan Greenspan regarding that school
of thought – it doesn't work, as even the blind should see given
the present state of the nation and world's economy. He expressed
my views much more clearly than I could, and I think you would agree,
he can lay some claim to "expertise." At least he had the good grace
to admit he was wrong. Other advocates of this school would do well
to do the same. It's not so hard, W-R-O-N-G – give it a shot.
I have cited
a clear exposition of my views, so I suggest that you or Walter
or anyone else refute them, by e-mail. This would be more to the
point that a debate between Walter and me. In fact, I politely decline
a debate on a number of grounds: first, I have neither the time
or inclination, second, I have given you access to a clear exposition
of my views that you can refute in writing, third, a debate between
two obscure professors at a small Southern liberal Arts University
would have the same national impact as, say, a speech at the Carrollton
Rotary Club, and fourth, in light of the views of most policy makers
and major economists, it would be irrelevant.
Best Regards,
Keith
About which,
some comments.
I appreciate
Prof. Vetter’s support for my academic freedom. This is more than
I received from the administration of Loyola College, Maryland.
My "friend"
Keith, with whom I am on a first name basis (well, he is, with me,
at least) mentions my "infantile opinions" without vouchsafing
any answer as to what, pray tell they may be? My views on macroeconomics?
On the male-female wage gap? We are left in the dark. All that I
know is that according to this scholar, my views remain "irrelevant
and fantastical." But I still don’t know why.
I don’t mind
having my views characterized as "infantile, or irrelevant
and fantastical." Been there before, had that done to me on
more than one occasion. But, usually, coupled with such charges
are chapter and verse of my shortcomings, with at least an attempt
to show me my errors. I do join Pat in finding this sort of name-calling
"offensive" when there are no specifics given.
Vetter asserts
his right to criticize his (Block’s) opinions. But he has not done
so. At least to date, this legal scholar has confined himself to
name calling.
Pat was not
calling into question Vetter’s "freedom of speech." He
was merely finding Vetter’s use thereof "offensive," something
the latter thinks he has a right to do. So, why the complaint?
Vetter charges
Lynch with "questioning expertise" and therefore engaging
in an ad hominem argument. Not so, not so. Merely "questioning
expertise" does not at all constitute an ad hominem argument.
Rather, in order to engage in an ad hominem argument, one
must first argue. But Lynch does not argue. Specifically,
he does not argue that Vetter is wrong because he lacks credentials
in economics. Rather, Lynch merely questions Vetter’s credentials.
One would think that Vetter could discern the difference between
these two, but, alas, no. That is, Lynch asks the following question:
"What are your qualifications to question his (Block’s) economics
expertise?" Note, Lynch does not argue that Vedder was
mistaken in his assessment of me, and, certainly not because of
Vedder's lack of credentials, as is required of an ad hominem.
As to Alan
Greenspan, he is a traitor to the views he learned from Ayn Rand,
and espoused when he was a young man (in favor of gold as money).
I will certainly admit to Prof. Vetter, and, indeed, to the entire
world, that I am W-R-O-N-G on this or any other issue, just as soon
as I seen an argument, or some evidence demonstrating
this. I wonder if Prof. Vetter would do so.
II. This second
correspondence is with a woman who was initially quite irate with
me and my views, and then, less so. I am calling her J, to protect
her anonymity. I will "out" her only to the extent of
saying that she holds the CPA degree and works in that capacity.
IIa. J to Block
From: J
Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 10:59 AM
To: locander@loyno.edu; pres@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu
Cc: vafrank@loyno.edu
Subject: Truly Disappointing
Dear Father
Wildes, Dean Locander, and Professor Block,
I am a graduate
of the College of Business (in the year XX), a former Director of
XX for the Student Government Association, and a former member of
the XX program for the College of Business. I am writing concerning
the recent speech Professor Block gave to the community at Loyola
Maryland. As a professional woman I was appalled by the remarks
made by Dr. Block, and I hope the members of the LOYNO community
are as well. I have always admired that Loyola fosters in its students
and faculty a desire to seek greater understanding through dialogue;
however, I have failed to learn through Dr. Block’s remarks how
his findings will serve to improve my future as a professional woman.
I suppose since my future seems so dim, I should avoid a partner
track and begin starting a family so that I can do what I do best
– be average. Is that what we are teaching at Jesuit institutions
now? I always thought that we strove for excellence in all things.
Or is that lesson to be reserved just for my male counterparts?
I regret not taking more classes in sewing, cooking, and parenting,
considering that Intermediate Accounting III and International Finance
will do nothing for my career as a future homemaker. Dr. Block suggested
poetry is a subject in which women excel. Perhaps I should have
designated my annual contribution to the English department instead
of the College of Business.
My greatest
concern is for the young women in the College of Business. If Dr.
Block considers his female students to be far inferior to his male
students, why should they even go to class? Would it be so that
they can achieve a greater understanding of their inferiority so
that they will not be disappointed in themselves when they fail
to be anything other than average? Isn’t that a wonderful lesson
– you can try, but really you’ll never amount to much other than
being a wife and mother who leaves cute little poems in her husband’s
briefcase so that he can have a productive day at the office. How
far we have come!
I would like
to ensure Dr. Block that this email has been composed as I am eating
a sandwich over my desk. I would hate for him to think that I am
contributing to the lack of productivity of women in the workplace.
How trite would that be!
I have copied
Ms. Frank on this email so that I can confirm that I would like
to move my contribution to the College of Business that I made one
week ago to the English Department. Thank you Ms. Frank. If you
have any questions in doing this, please don’t hesitate to call.
Sincerely Disappointed,
J
IIb. Block
to J
From: Walter
Block [mailto:walterblock@cba.loyno.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:15 PM
To: J; locander@loyno.edu; pres@loyno.edu
Cc: vafrank@loyno.edu
Subject: RE: Truly Disappointing
Dear J:
Thanks for
your interesting letter.
Have you actually
heard what I said, or, are you basing the points in this letter
on second hand reports? I strongly suspect the latter. True? If
so, that is not the scientific way to go about these things. I would
be appalled if my own students did that.
If you are
actually interested in what I SAID (see the fourth entry for a link),
you can peruse this material.
When and if
you do so, I should be glad to communicate with you on this, once
again.
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block,
Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics
College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Ave., Box 15
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504)864-7934
fax: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
IIc. J to Block
From: J
Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 2:01 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: RE: Truly Disappointing
Dr. Block,
After reading
the article on Nola.com, I did a little research to try to find
the transcript of your presentation. Although I was not able to,
I did find the fourth link you cited below through this
weblink.
I had indeed
read your comments, and I am still unclear as to your solution for
me to be achieving above average success since I am a married female
professional. I like to consider myself more than nature’s insurance
policy. I would also like to think that the professors who taught
me and women like me considered me more than that as well.
 Perhaps
it is because we assume women are average at best that some women
fill that role once they have become married or have children. I
mean why keep working if people aren’t going to see you as "management
material." Perhaps the answer is not to continue accepting
this as God’s truth, but to expect more of our husbands. Considering
so many of them reside on the right side of the Bell Curve, you’d
think they can use some of their superior ability to chip in a little,
mine does.
Lastly, I am
curious as to whether or not the levels of productivity have been
studied since the birth and resounding popularity of things like
March Madness and fantasy football. I can tell you as someone who
works with men, managing a fantasy football team can be awfully
time consuming. It seems that every time I pass the gentleman in
the office next to me that’s what he’s doing. And March Madness
– well now there’s really something to call in sick for.
I have read
many of your editorials in the Maroon, and, although I do not always
agree, I respect your opinions because of the thoughtful manner
in which you outline your argument. However, it does not take much
thought to generalize an entire group of people. If I was one of
your students, I would expect a different and better curving scale
to apply to me since I am just average.
J
IId. Block
to J
Dear J:
Madame Curie,
Judit Polgar, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher all broke
through the glass ceiling. Joan Robinson probably would have won
the Nobel Prize in economics, had it been around at that time.
My "solution"
for you is to try to break through the glass ceiling in your own
field.
 NOTHING
I have ever said is incompatible with that advice. (If you find
something, let me know, and I'll publicly retract it.) All I said
that as a matter of STATISTICS, fewer women achieve such success
(I certainly have not, even though I'm not a married female), than
men. Certainly, fewer married women do, perhaps unless they have
a house husband, a rarity.
So, try as
hard as you can, is my advice. Only realize that the historical
statistical odds are against you.
Does this enrage
you? It is the truth. Does the truth count for nothing in academia?
May I have
your permission to publish this correspondence, using your name?
If not, I'll certainly protect your anonymity.
Best regards,
Walter
IIe. J to Block
From: J
Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 2:38 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: RE: Truly Disappointing
 I
appreciate your reply. I have and will continue to do my best to
shatter the glass ceiling once and for all. I have had the opportunity
to be raised by a woman who started putting in a few cracks. I have
also been lucky enough to work with two very impressive women who
have done the same. The odds may be against me, but they get better
every day.
As for publishing
this correspondence, I would prefer not to be named. Ironically
enough, I would not want to offend the women I know who have made
the difficult choice to forego professional success for family life.
If it is published,
would you send me a copy?
J
Final note:
This story
continues to show legs. See here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here
and here.
December
5, 2008
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable and the newly released Labor
Economics From A Free Market Perspective.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
